alt Hacker News> This seems…good?
You would think so but medicine has faced this paradox since the development of modern testing technology.
You would naively think more testing is always better. More sophisticated practitioners then talk about Type I vs Type II errors and the problem of false positives.
But even if you were able to come up with tests that had 100% accuracy, there are times when you don't want to run that test on someone. The key distinction is that people only ever die of one thing and having a tumor that doesn't kill them is often better than risking the surgery to remove the tumor.
Similarly, there are some bugs you don't want to find since the harm from the people it affects is smaller than the opportunity cost of fixing it. Ignorance of the bug is better than knowing about it and having to make an affirmative decision not to fix it.
Replies
That's a flawed analogy though.
Firstly, the cost of fixing a bug once you know it exists is usually minimal compared to the cost of discovering that bug. This is the inverse of medicine, where the cost of testing (at least in terms of health outcomes for the patient) is typically minimal compared to the cost of treatment.
Secondly, if you have an asymptomatic illness, this does not typically make you more vulnerable (hence why it's asymptomatic). Like you say, you typically only die of one thing, so if you know the patient won't die of a particular diagnosis because something else is more likely to kill them, then it might not be worth making that diagnosis. But for software, you can be simultaneously vulnerable to lots of things at once, and any of these vulnerabilities can be the one to "kill" you. Some vulnerabilities may be easier to find and exploit (or do more damage) but in principle any active vulnerability can be exploited.
Thirdly, having multiple vulnerabilities makes software more vulnerable overall, because those vulnerabilities can potentially be chained together to create more serious exploits than each vulnerability would have represented on its own. To a certain extent this can be true in medicine as well, but generally it isn't.
Fourthly, we can't cure death (yet?) but we can cure all the vulnerabilities that we've found so far. There is no known upper bound on the lifespan of a piece of software, and we know that older code tends to have fewer bugs in that newer code, presumably because those bugs have been fixed over time. This is different from health issues, where a given condition may be chronic or terminal and therefore at a certain point there's nothing you can do to fix it.
Finally, ultimately in healthcare it's your body, and your decision was to what you do with it (assuming you can find a doctor willing to do what you want). If you have a condition and you want it cured, even if it is completely benign and will have no impact on your life whatsoever, then you can do that. (Again, assuming you have the resources and the condition is curable). But a software vulnerability does not affect you as the developer of the software, it instead affects your users/clients/customers. Therefore there are different dynamics in play. If I sell you a tool and I know it could be vulnerable, but I don't try and find out what those vulnerabilities are, then you're ultimately the one on the hook when all your data gets deleted or leaked.
> some bugs you don't want to find
The key thing you forgot, which makes this approach non-sensible, is the omniscience, without which you have no clue whether your posture towards a new bug-finding tool is good or not, since you don't know whether it will mostly find those bugs that are not worth fixing and the time wasted on fixing them is detrimental.
Similarly, how is ignorance better than informed decision when ignorance also includes missing critical security bugs?
Doing surgery on a code base is dramatically better than surgery on a person, the analogy breaks down pretty quickly I’d say…
Medicine is fuzzy, software is mostly maths. You can prove your software has no bugs and you increasingly should be proving that. The hard part is knowing if what you prove is what the software is doing.
I don't see how that's a relevant comparison. These are software bugs. Once you find them you fix them. You can't predict the harm from a small bug when AI can chain complex exploits and when your software is used in mission critical applications as a data store. There's no paradox here, bugs are bad and you want to fix them all.